Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Is it acceptable to have only one “inspected/tested” Form 1, without any other historical, to install a component?

• If the component is on condition, it is sufficient provided that block 12 indicates the tasks performed in the inspection/test and the maintenance data used (or there is traceability to the documentation where the information can be found).

• If the component is hard time (on condition with maintenance), this Form 1 would only be accepted if block 12 contains information about the last time the corresponding tasks were performed, or if Form 1 accompanies the relevant documentation with the last completion of these tasks. Preferably both.

Can the Quality Officer of an organisation Part 145, with certification authorisation with scope of basic maintenance (Category LMA license), sign the CRS for basic maintenance work?

Certifying or releasing a maintenance task by means of a TLB, CRS or EASA Form 1 is considered to be the last action in the production process of a maintenance facility, and this task is the privilege of the certifying staff duly authorised to do so. A Quality Manager of a maintenance centre, as well as the Quality System auditors, should not be involved in this production process (AMC 145.A.65 (c) 1-11), since when managing/performing quality audits, an essential component of the Quality System, the required independent nature of the quality system would be infringed. 
 

Can a maintenance organisation with rating A perform component maintenance on the aircraft, not covered by this component maintenance by the AMM and yes by the CMM?

Oh, yeah, yeah. In relation to maintenance of aircraft components by an organisation with rating A, maintenance not covered by the AMM and yes by the CMM, Regulation 1321/2014 makes two references: 

What is the procedure for requesting an aircraft’s Simple Information Note and the corresponding payment of the fee? And if it’s better to apply for a Certification of Ownership and Charges, because I don't know what the difference is.

A simple note is a certified copy of the aircraft’s registration seats. A certificate of ownership and charges is limited to exposing to whom the aircraft currently belongs and if it is subject to charges such as liens or mortgages. You can find more information on how to apply at this link. 
 
As regards the payment of the fee, the fee to be taken into account is the 19th and you have the information on it here.

We've sold an aircraft in another country. My question is whether to deregister the plane is enough with the sales bill, or it is necessary to legitimise the signatures.

For the RMAC it will be sufficient to provide a Sales Declaration (we can provide the model of the same) where only the notary recognition of the signature of the Spanish holder of the aircraft is required. I confirm that the Invoice is not a sufficient document.

We will acquire a second-hand ultralight from its owner, which is a company. Is it enough with the invoice of sale, or does it have to make a contract, in addition, with a signature legitimised before Notary?

The Invoice is not a document inscribed either in the Register of Furniture Property of Madrid or in the RMAC. You can consult in the MOD 4 application, the type of document that must be submitted in both registers, through this link.

Is it possible to obtain the approval of a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation in Spain through AESA having the headquarters outside Spain?

In order to obtain approval 147 by AESA, the head office (headquarter or social headquarters of the company where the financial functions and operational control of the activities are exercised) must be registered in Spain.
If the Head Office is located in another EASA member country, the application for approval shall be submitted to the Aviation Authority of that country.  
If the Head Office is located in another country that is NOT a member of EASA, the application for approval will be submitted to EASA.

Subscribe to Aircraft